Chinese / American Endgame - the future for America

China, America, the massive debt accumulation and the loss of jobs to the rising red giant.

I often wonder what is going on behind the scenes with the greatest powers in the world (as I am sure you all do), not really knowing who even wields
power or who simply believes they do.

Take past leaders of nations, Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega, both put into power by the Western Superpower, and both removed. One by invasion and
subsequent death, and the other a long term jail sentence. It seems when you piss off big brother, he slaps you around.

And while the Middle East and South America is a little barbaric compared to rest of the world, it is barbaric enough that operations tend never to go
gracefully. Same in Africa… Same in Asia circa 1960-80s.

These are obviously some of the most brutal manipulation tactics around, overthrowing governments, installing Juntas, supporting guerrillas, etc.

But it doesn't always happen that way, nor does it. In some cases world leaders simply bend to the will of the current empire. Saudi Arabia for
instance, has been friend to the US without getting toppled or overthrown for a good many years now.

I think the main focus of geopolitics (If we are looking for greatest impact) though is China. As the trade deficit increases and jobs go by the
wayside stateside, some feel like the US is losing a trade war to China. However, any long term thinkers will simply see more sides to this story than
are current voiced.

Whenever you read articles about "this or that" happening, with talking points, "China is beating us", "we are losing our jobs", "the government is
trying to kill us" you are missing out on the full picture. You are being bamboozled. Because the truth of things can never be fit into talking
points.

Human existence is a very sobering experience, and when you get the full truth it usually comes out in point form.

-So and so did this.
-This was the repercussion.
-But X knew about that.
-Y didn't let on they knew.
-So X was doing all _____ for nothing while Y waited for…
-And then Z came in and stole the _____.

Very hard to put those points into a single all encompassing explanation.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

born March 28, 1928) is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor
to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.
Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China (and the severing of
ties with the Republic of China); the signing of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II); the brokering of the Camp David Accords; the
transition of Iran from an important U.S. client state to an anti-Western Islamic Republic, encouraging dissidents in Eastern Europe and emphasizing
human rights in order to undermine the influence of the Soviet Union;[1] the financing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in response to the Soviet
deployment of forces there[2] and the arming of these rebels to counter the Soviet invasion; and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties
relinquishing overt U.S. control of the Panama Canal after 1999.

Brzezinski is currently Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies,
a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of various boards and councils. He appears frequently as an expert on
the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, ABC News' This Week with Christiane Amanpour, and on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where his daughter, Mika
Brzezinski, is co-anchor. In recent years, he has been a supporter of the Prague Process.[3] His son, Mark Brzezinski, is an American diplomat and the
current United States Ambassador to Sweden since 2011.

Brzezinski, if you haven't heard of him, is the father of modern foreign policy for the US with China. To understand foreign policy, is to understand
this man.

Brzezinski advised Carter in 1978 to engage the People's Republic of China and traveled to Beijing to lay the groundwork for the normalization of
relations between the two countries. This also resulted in the severing of ties with the United States' longtime anti-Communist ally the Republic of
China.

Brzezinski's book is entitled, "The Grand Chessboard"

Dr. Brzezinski, probably best known today for being the father of Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, is also considered the father or
American grand imperial strategy in Central Asia. In his text, The Grand Chessboard, the good doctor explains the advantages of a post-Cold War,
post-Soviet Union Central Asian landmass dominated by the world’s last hegemonic power, the United States of America.

And from the above quoted article which gives so much credit to Mr. B, they then say:

There is a problem, though. The United States isn’t playing chess against Iran. The United States is playing against China and our old
friends, the Russians. AE plans to delve into this topic more deeply in the coming days and weeks, but for today, understand this one thing: the
United States, when it comes to resources, is in a fight for its life. As I said before, don’t miss the point of what’s going on here. The
United States isn’t trying to control the world’s oil supply just so secret cabals of oil execs can get rich. We’re doing it so our nation can
survive the 21st Century. We’re doing it because Russia and China have decided that this period of American dominance needs to come to an end.
Currently these two nations are actively engaged in undermining American hegemony in the most effective way possible: by attacking the U.S.
Dollar.

Basically, saying the chess game isn't in Central Asia, it's with China. However, if the people playing chess with America's foreign affairs are good,
they are many steps ahead, and no one will be the wiser.

They are also blind enough to say that Mr. B doesn't see this, nor ever saw this. But I have my suspicions that the leading minds in geopolitics,
assessed each and every country when they laid their plans to grand stratego.

So while China is flush with US paper, they have taken on a huge percentage of the manufacturing capabilities of America. Those jobs are there now,
and the money that paid for them stateside is flowing in faster than exports leave the docks.

Most see this as a terrible set of circumstances which are going to lead the US into disaster.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and an enemy that is not so good at being an enemy is the friendly one I want to have.

Truth be told, China has never really faced world domination. They were for eons the centre of their own world. Deep in to the history you will
account various wars which disbanded and reunited the country, conquered but maintained its culture, conquered then vanquished, but throughout it all,
there was never a need to expand the empire beyond the centralized borders.

Yes, there was ancient influence in South East Asia, but, that still stays within the limits of a centralized world. There were no voyages around the
world looking for colonies, in fact, when the Chinese fleet was capable of dominating the globe, the Emperor burned
it.***

China, being the centre of the world.

The country may be rising, but it's political prowess isn't. The government is beyond corrupt taking 50% of business that comes in, which ends up
being siphoned off the by the leaders approving the deals. The top elites in this country make no effort to hide their power. (It was never needed in
the past.) In fact, Confucianism and the Imperial Roots have not vanished their entire influence.

In the past, the top scholars, royals, warlords, were the most powerful. They studied and learned ancient teachings and that knowledge was almost as
powerful as a sword, for if you could best a man in his words, you could prove him wrong, and justify a sword. Needless to say, many people knew
exactly where they stood. Yet, all still superseded by Imperial rank. Upsetting the wrong person would bring unbelievable punishments.

How has the new modern culture translated into world relations?

China's current leadership transition is taking place at a point when the country again has to reevaluate its regional and world engagements. The
last couple of years have been disastrous in China's foreign policy. Its regional engagements have backfired, one after the other. Some of this comes
from what historian Paul Kennedy calls imperial overstretch: to move faster and further than what material resources and political prowess allows for.
It is quite possible to believe both that China is a rising power and that it has overstepped the mark on what it's able to achieve through pressure
within its own region.

Look at its relations with Japan. After a series of statements from Beijing, some of them very aggressive, the Japanese have elected an administration
that takes a hard line on China. Last fall's barrage of harsh words from China — on the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands dispute and other matters — played
right into the electoral strategy of Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party.

No longer. Recent South Korean opinion polls show that people's views of China have nose-dived since Beijing's failure to condemn the North's
sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and its shelling of a South Korean island in 2010, and Pyongyang's recent missile tests. Park's election
campaign made good use of the fear of an unruly neighborhood. She seeks to strengthen Seoul's alliance with the U.S., and has said that North Korea
will only join the "family of nations if it realizes that assistance from China cannot last forever."

Some of that imperial arrogance perhaps spilled over into todays modern politicians. In any case, what we have is one very massive country, that took
on a huge portion of producing the worlds pollution, all for money and power. Yet, no one has really made a case that China knows how to use that
power. And they certainly haven't shown any signs of wanting world domination in their past, more so just the domination of their own borders.

So… The question I pose with this thread, is: Was the deal with China simply a move of sacrificing your rooks to get all their
pawns?

It is obvious the IMF and World Bank are on some type of terms with the US, as they were the only ones not to get spied on by the NSA.
*** If you want more information on how the IMF and
World Bank has wielded US influence, you can find it, and vice versa. Seems almost like a partnership.

While China got a large portion of US manufacturing, which increased jobs, it also increased pollution. And while there are more jobs, the workers
work for far less than Americans, and 12-16 hour days as well. If you consider that someone has to do the dirty work, well, China is doing it.

Their country and people are suffering. Pollution is reaching critical levels and even the oppressive government cannot contain it.

China has a serious smog problem. So much so that the northern city of Harbin, home to about 11 million people, was forced to cancel classes,
close down the airport and suspend certain bus routes Monday.

According to The Associated Press, fine particulate matter readings taken in Harbin indicate that air pollution in the area is 40 times higher than
the international safety standard set by the World Health Organization.

So while people want to criticize on American business, and world banking powers, which have allowed this exodus of manufacturing, what you have is a
country producing your goods for pennies on the dollar and absolutely destroying their country to do so. Picture on a smaller scale, imagine
your neighbour burned down their house for $1000, you know its worth more than that, but they some how didn't see it.

BEIJING, Aug 11 (Reuters) - China plans to accelerate investment in technology to save energy and tackle the dire pollution blamed for a series of
health crises that have generated widespread public anger.

The government has been increasingly alarmed by social unrest caused by environmental disasters and threats to public health, often the result of the
country's breakneck industrial expansion and mass migration to new cities.

Smog over northern cities in January generated a public outcry, as did the discovery in March of thousands of rotting pig carcasses in a river that
supplies Shanghai's water.

The country's cabinet, the State Council, said on Sunday that environmental protection would be elevated to a "pillar industry" that would receive
government support in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.

The country has responded to this noxious crisis in a fashion becoming its size, with promises of giant sums of money – more than a
quarter-trillion dollars – and a breakneck build-up of a green energy sector that is already the world’s largest.

But even this may not be enough to clean up China’s air. That may require a much larger change, to the philosophy that has guided China for more
than three decades: economic growth above all else.

Perhaps the game of chess being played with America's future started many years ago when foreign policy set it's sights on China. Yes, so far, the US
has managed to keep them rising like a traditional threat. And China/Russia together, have had just a big enough piece of pie in the Middle East,
which has kept them happy and kept the US from launching full scale invasions, (although coming damn close a few times, and then there's Iraq…)

In fact where does China have to go in the future? And how exactly are the IMF and World Bank going to play into the debt bend held by them. They
mentioned SDR, and other means of monetary policy, what happens if the US lets out so much money that China actually only holds a small percentage.
Super inflation, and massive created debt, to make China's holdings devalued.

Or, take into account the pollution. This is beyond sustainable. There are cities that have buses getting lost because they can't see the roads.
20-30-40-50 times the normal air quality limits of first world nations.

Maybe the end game is to offer a solution, and earn all that money they've been getting back. "Here, you made all this stuff for us, you polluted and
destroyed your country, but if you give us the money back we will clean it up for you!"

In fact, this might have all been intended all along. The loss of jobs and the middle class? In an ideal society, no one would have to do manual
labour. The growing pains of completely eliminating one from yours would be very harsh, essentially making life insufferable enough so those classes
of people don't feel like passing on their legacies, but yes, I sense that this could also be rationalized by someone playing a worldwide game of
chess.

I found another interesting article by someone who lives in China, also failing to grasp the whole picture:

Americans are supposedly helping China by sopping up their excess production (savings), and will supposedly hurt China as their ability to consume
disappears.

Well… simply put this would only be true if Americans had been trading real goods of equal value for their excess consumption.

But they were trading slips of paper with ever declining value for real goods from China.

When China cuts off Americans from the goods they can’t afford, real consumption of goods and real savings in China will go up.

After all, paper losses at the companies most exposed to exports to America will not reduce the amount of real resources, labor, or capital in
China’s economy. Such losses will just force these factors to flow to companies that can meet the real consumption needs (current and future) of
China or trading partners who trade real goods.

When you calculate how much money you have, you weigh your assets to your liabilities. But people everywhere fail to factor in the pollution as a
liability. I remember the city I grew up in wanted to decontaminate an area of previous industrial production, and the bill was assessed at 300-500
million. It is quite possible, the company didn't even make that much (as it was not a massive company, probably 20-30 million in sales a year, and
only operated for ten years.)

When you take these numbers into account, China could very well be bankrupting itself by making money. I will search to see if I can find some hard
numbers or sources to back this position.

So a recent report pegs the current cost of China's pollution at 5.8% of GDP:

Building upon willingness-to-pay surveys for reducing health risks from pollution among households in Shanghai and Chongqing municipalities, the
study finds that the health costs of air and water pollution in China amount to about 4.3 percent of its GDP. By adding the non-health impacts of
pollution, which are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of GDP, the total cost of air and water pollution in China is about 5.8 percent of GDP.

The burden of both air and water pollution is not distributed evenly across the country. For example, China’s poor are disproportionately affected
by the environmental health burden and only six provinces bear 50 percent of the effects of acid rain in the country.

Washington DC, July 11, 2007 -- Following recent media interest in the finalization of a joint World Bank-Government of China report entitled Cost of
Pollution in China – Economic Estimates of Physical Damages, the head of the World Bank in China, David Dollar made the following statement:

China approached the World Bank in 2003 to develop an estimate of how much environmental air and water pollution costs China – including in human
health impact terms. This was triggered by a growing concern on China's part that its rapid economic growth was carrying a large environmental and
human health cost.

Breakdown of the numbers:

the combined health and non-health cost of outdoor air and water pollution for China's economy comes to around $US100 billion a year (or about 5.8% of
the country's GDP)

air pollution, especially in large cities, is leading to higher incidences of lung diseases, including cancer, respiratory system problems and
therefore higher levels of work and school absenteeism

water pollution is also causing growing levels of cancer and diarrhea particularly in children under-5

water pollution is further exacerbating China's severe water scarcity problems, bringing the overall cost of water scarcity to about 1% of GDP.

regardless of income levels in China, the willingness to pay for reduced health risks associated with environmental pollution is about the
same.

And here is the kicker. If anyone is familiar with South America and Africa, and just exactly how US corporations and the World Bank or IMF get their
greedy hands into those countries, to pump out resources at pennies on the dollar, it is all done through loans.

IMF and World Bank loans are given for many things, in a lot of cases it is infrastructure, and when that infrastructure is built, the heads of
nations pocket or divert much of the money, which leads to SUPER inflated prices and a massive debt. That debt is then transferred or paid off, by the
sale of resources for pennies on the dollar to US companies. This usually is done in the guise of a credit default swap, or similar transaction.

And while everyone thinks the Chinese are going to call on their US dollars causing panic and mayhem, it seems the world bank has a plan to hook the
Chinese and put them on the books. (Keep in mind I believe they funded the three gorges dam, a massive amount of pollution an wreckage it produced as
the worlds largest displacement of water which took over entire villages.)

In undertaking this ground-breaking assessment of its pollution challenges, China has shown how committed it is to addressing the problem. In its
11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010), China put environmental protection as its highest priority. The plan calls for a "resource saving society" and sets
targets to reduce energy consumption per yuan of GDP by 20% and meet 10% of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2010. It also pledged to reduce
total discharge of major pollutants by 10% by 2010.

In cooperation with SEPA, the World Bank has been working on a series of innovative research reports on critical environmental protection issues.
Besides this report, we are also working with China in the areas of environmental administration, air and water pollution control, and national
"green" accounting which incorporate environmental costs into GDP estimations.

The World Bank's lending portfolio in China reflects the Government's commitment to the environment. In fact, environment-related projects account
for about 60% of our lending to China (and are also prominent in IFC and MIGA portfolios), including energy efficiency, rural and urban water
conservation and pollution reduction, and sustainable rural and urban development

Mind you also, the numbers provided seem to only calculate the current cost to the country, not even near the cost of actually trying to clean it
up…

There are two things I would tell you to focus on if you want your answer: 1. Know the difference between public economic policy and deep economic
strategy. 2. Gain a thorough grasp of Asian mentality.

20 or 30 years from now you'll understand, and, of course, everything will have played itself out well before then.

Using the data I found at this source: Here and
Here and of course with the World Bank assessment on how much China's pollution is costing them,
I created a graph. The data is presented in hundreds of millions, but you can easily calculate in your head by just seeing the numbers as trillions.

And to bring up Chinese industrial/manufacturing to standards, I used the figure in this
article.

Keep in mind this is not the most accurate representation. However, it the two bottoms lines are technically compounded. And, environmental retrofit
normally costs a lot more than projected. Mind you, as far as I can tell, this only solves the problem of ongoing pollution and by no means tackles
cleaning up contaminated areas.

Li Pingri remembers swimming with fish and shrimp as a boy in Guangdong’s Chigang waterway in China. Today, even after the city spent 48.6
billion yuan ($7.2 billion) on a cleanup, he can’t stand the canal’s smell.

I am having trouble coming to terms with the lowball estimates that many are providing in online materials. When you consider that only one city,
tried cleaning up ONE problem, and it cost 7 billion. And still, they complain of the pollution.

Industrial cities in China have a Top 100 which I imagine there
are hundreds more. Considering there is about 656 cities in total, * I
presume quite a few are industrialized, and most all fail to meet any kind of environmental protection that the western world has. (Heck, that's why
business is so good there.)

But lets say they decontaminated just the top hundred, how much would that be, 7 billion times 100? 700 billion. And they still wouldn't be happy with
the results. (And that is still just addressing only one problem a city has…

I determined by charting data that the cost to the GDP as well as a retrofit, will take about 1.15 trillion out of China's pocket. If they ever decide
to actual repair the damage, I believe we are looking in the mid 5 trillion range.

And with IMF or World Bank loans to finance the cleanup, perhaps the idea is just to pay it off with dollars they have been holding on to.

To get an idea of where the World Bank is right now with loans to China, I will provide their information:

China Projects & Programs
As of June 30, 2012, Bank cumulative lending (IBRD and IDA) to China was more than $50.41 billion for 349 projects. The portfolio is concentrated in
environment, transportation, urban development, rural development, energy, water resources management, and human development.

Most of these look like retrofits on existing industrial projects as well as tackling problems they have been having. Also including new projects with
better technology.

The current lending rate to China is extremely low, (for World Bank standards)

China 5.3 5.3 5.8 6.6 6.0

Perhaps they simply don't have any leverage yet. If you look at the Congo, you know exactly what I am talking about:

Congo, Dem. Rep. 43.2 65.4 56.5 43.8 28.4

If my OP has any foresight, or I am on to anything with this thread, we may see rates as well as loans increase in the long future. (I imagine if this
strategy is what's being played out, it will be a long process.)

I don't really believe that the leadership of Red China is the real power over there. When you look back at US/British/Sino relations in the 20th
century there was a constant stream of influence in their affairs coming from the West.
I believe we also backed Mao as well as Chiang Kai Shek. This was a quiet secret of the Federal Reserve and our intelligence services. You may recall
our "first" ambassadors to Red China were Kissinger, GHWBush and Nixon. After Bush's stint as special liason he was moved in to head of the CIA. I
don't think that was coincidental by any means, just an extension of the same job he was doing. They were setting up the deals in the 1970's to
begin moving industry from the US to Red China which started in the 80's and accelerated (along with espionage) under Clinton.
There was the endless line of Chinese businessmen who were contributing to the Clinton campaign while at the same time Chinese agents were stealing
industrial and military secrets with a wink and a nod from the White House.

Some theorize that the Federal Reserve and Bank of England are secretly connected to the Vatican and associated groups like the Jesuits and Opus Dei
which I happen to agree with. There is evidence the Jesuits have played a crucial role in China's development and provided a guiding hand and
connections to Western finance.

ultimately I agree with your premise that we are using China as a toxic dumping ground and slave labor. When it comes time to double cross China it
will be interesting to see how events unfold. We know the current state of affairs can't last forever.

We WILL double cross them too, all it would take is a war with them.Then all our debt to them is cancelled the moment they fire at us regardless of
who's fault it is, we will say theirs of course. But China is not trading fair anyway are they? Our trading policies with them are so one sided in
their favor I suppose some could see that as economic retribution. Legality is a joke anyway in that arena when the military IS their government
anyway.

When you calculate how much money you have, you weigh your assets to your liabilities. But people everywhere fail to factor in the pollution as
a liability. ...

When you take these numbers into account, China could very well be bankrupting itself by making money. I will search to see if I can find some hard
numbers or sources to back this position.

S&F for your time and labour at least. Would be interesting to see a balance sheet for the entire planet that calculates the economic impacts of air
pollution and environmental contamination. Who do you think should be held accountable for losses? The people and corporations who profited, or
individual nations and their citizens?

I don't really believe that the
leadership of Red China is the real power over there. When you look back at US/British/Sino relations in the 20th century there was a constant stream
of influence in their affairs coming from the West.

Its interesting when you look at the foothold UK and Portugal took in their country. Two very important trading posts, and they got it by an extortion
of addicting their population to opium. Then the Japanese invade and it's "what do we do under this new system"?

You point out something important, beyond influence, but also the Xenophobia China has with outside culture. White people literally meaning "foreign
devil"…

I am not sure if they have ever properly assessed outsiders unless there was a reason they wanted contact with them. It has seemed to go in a very bad
direction when the contact was initiated by the outside party. Although, some might say the HK lease and Macau were a very diplomatic means of
resolution, but at the same time, there is an inherent distaste or unwontedness with anything foreign.

When you calculate how much money you have, you weigh your assets to your liabilities. But people everywhere fail to factor in the pollution as
a liability. ...

When you take these numbers into account, China could very well be bankrupting itself by making money. I will search to see if I can find some hard
numbers or sources to back this position.

S&F for your time and labour at least. Would be interesting to see a balance sheet for the entire planet that calculates the economic impacts of air
pollution and environmental contamination. Who do you think should be held accountable for losses? The people and corporations who profited, or
individual nations and their citizens?

I would hate to see the numbers on nuclear alone. This is something that I think is going to be a major issue once whatever plan there is goes into
effect. Even without a plan, imagine a country with 20% of the world population under server duress because of pollution. The way they are headed
right now, it may reach the point that no one can dismiss it. As little as ten years ago it was barely talked about, barely noticed, and since it has
progressed to the point that people can't hide it if they wanted to.

Even though I have read alot about China, it never occurred to me that they are all inclusive and remain within their own boundaries, but with our
debt to them and the fact they are moving in to America by the droves, do you suppose they have extended their perceived boundaries to include the
Continental US? On one hand your info is calming but on the other it is even more disturbing.

antar
Even though I have read alot about China, it never occurred to me that they are all inclusive and remain within their own boundaries, but with our
debt to them and the fact they are moving in to America by the droves, do you suppose they have extended their perceived boundaries to include the
Continental US? On one hand your info is calming but on the other it is even more disturbing.

That is a very valid point. As of yet we have not seen any major credit - asset swaps (as far as I know.) The major influx of Chinese nationals were
from Hong Kong during the 1997 give back of the HK SAR to China (from the UK). I would say more came to Canada than to the states, but I am sure the
emigration numbers are probably high as well stateside. They came however to shield their money from China, and with all intentions to get away from
the government there, as they had been accustomed to british administration.

The previously settled Chinese, a lot of them are from the days of the railway, and are a few generations deep. What we have now, is a large number of
mainland students, which are Chinese nationals who do align with the government there. Many are rich in cash, (their parents being connected to
business or government) and their purpose is not fully understood. The official reason is for education and business, to learn English (common used
language in the world) and learn western business models as well as engineering and medicine (three highly coveted doctrines in China). These are all
encouraged by parents which suggests the parents are steering them in that direction.

As for ulterior motive, I wouldn't be able to say. None have come out and said anything.

Also keep in mind I follow trends, I am not trying to label a group here, but I know of schools with percentages of 20-40 mainland demographic, all
three programs I mentioned. That's not a coincidence.

Whew, that was quite a read and it will take a while to digest it all. That said it seems to me the China (and Russia) are aiming to knock down the US
via it's reserve currency status. If they topple that then the entire world power structures will have to be realigned with them (they hope) at the
top. It's no secret that both of those countries have been importing hard assets (gold) hand over fist and even a partial gold backed currency will
help destabilize the dollar. They don't have to overpower us (they couldn't anyway,) and reserve currencies are never forever.

As far as debt between countries it's a charade when the shooting starts anyway. For our part we would refuse to pay back the debt owed to China and
nationalize all the US assets they've bought up. Reminds me a bit of Venezuela's plan.

Haven't quite got my head around the pollution aspect of the post yet.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.